[Free Article] Deus Ex Errata

[Pave]

I was dissapointed by the nuking of the Vault/Fusillade combo - I never played it but it enriched Vintage on the whole.  I was also unsure how to feel about the errata, however.  I found Steve's article very compelling.  It focussed very well not only the arguments for and against certain renderings of Time Vault but more importantly what is most deeply at issue in those arguments.

I found most devastating two passages, one in which Steve laments the abandonment of an over-arching concern for the satisfaction of Magic's players, so explicitly appealed to in the restriction of Trinisphere, and the other in which he asks, as The Atog Lord does in another thread, if the purpose of the errata is to return Time Vault to its original text, changing it minimally only in order to conform to a since expanded and revised system of rules, then why is there a time counter on it?  I think that the removal of the time counter is one of the implied conclusions of Steve's article, and I for one wouldn't fear that at all.  It would makes things interesting.  (For one thing people would begin to see Twiddle for the busted card that it is.)

I did find the recourse to legal vernacular, though illuminating in some parts, distracting in others.  That the original wording of Time Vault is unclear and subject to interpreation is a view that needn't be complicated by appeal to law or philosophy of language.  If recourse to analogies in law help you to articulate your thoughts, though, Steve, then by all means go for it.  We are all the richer for it.

[dicemanx]

What are you people, the WotC police? Learn to appreciate sarcasm please.

Guys, can we please stop kidding ourselves and admit what this is really about?  This is about money.  This is about people who paid $100/each for their Time Vaults who are pissed that now they're only worth $80.  As someone else pointed out, how much has the rest of your collection increased in value over the past few years?

Why do you want to ascribe this to being solely about money? To make it "easier" to defeat the arguments?

Look, I had 2 archetypes ruined by this decision. I am the originator of HyperMUD, and I was preparing a FlameVault combo deck for the Rochester event. I don't appreciate being told "what this is really about" by someone who is speculating on motive in order to weaken the argument. In my view they killed some options in T1 for no sufficiently compelling reason. Even if it was 100% about money as you want it to be, it STILL would stand as a bad decision. OK?

It's not rocket science people. If the net sum is unhappiness, with no appreciable corresponding benefit given that there were perfectly REASONABLE options to not ruin the card and yet fulfill the desired goals of scrapping debt cost and lining up the oracle text with the written intent, then it was a bad decision.

Period.
 

[dicemanx]

My response to you: I don't like errata. I don't like playing with my cards and knowing that the text on my cards isn't what the card does. 

Guess what, sorry to burst your bubble, but errata on Time Vault is unavoidable. Also, the current oracle wording doesn't match the text on the card anyways - why aren't you upset? And are you more enlightened than the rest of us to understand what intent behind the printed text on Time Vault is exactly?

I would like it when I can read my cards and at least get a general feel for how the card is supposed to work. I can say that Time Vault's text more closely approximates its current errata-based functionality that its previous errata-based functionality.

Oh really, and many people think otherwise. Are you sure you haven't been conditioned to believe that the card itself implies a certain functionality and thus are fooled into believing that the oracle text "most closely matches written text"? Like I said, where were you before this errata was issued?

It is not perfect, I know, and I wish the power-level errata surrounding the Vault didn't have to exist... but it is certainly better now than before.

How is it better now than before? Are you *sure* you're not being spiteful or conditioned?

As for the subject of my happiness... I was indeed unhappy with the way Time Vault worked before. I knew the time counter and infinute untap clause existed, but it left a bad taste in my mouth whenever I saw the FF-TV combo, because I knew it existed ONLY because of Time Vault's errata. So, yes, I was happier when Vault was errata'd. Did I voice my concerns out before the errata about Vault's faulty errata? Not on these forums, I never intended on being an active member of TMD, but I felt I had to reply to the overwhelming amount of complaining about this change.

It looks to me like this happiness stems from the axing of the combo, which I must say is a little puzzling coming from someone who I would assume plays T1. The reason I say this is because we play a format filled with cards and strategies that exploit cards beyond their intent. They might not all be errata-based, but they likewise leave a handful of people with similar "bad taste in their mouths", annoyed that Tinker and YawgWill can win games so easily or that Illusionary Mask gets around additional coming into play costs.

Your apparent happiness stemming from the desire to have the card match some "textual intent" that you envision is correct is still inconsistent with the fact that the card fails to do so due to the time counter. You are using whatever policy or motive you want for your convenience - "no power errata should be used, but lets make an exception here because thats the way I like it - to keep Time Vault neutered". "There's ambiguity in the written text, but I don't think Vault should work this particular way because I don't like its interaction with FF". You are essentally attributing your happiness to something that the B/R list should be doing, not the rules manager.

And as for my supposed spitefulness... I am not being spiteful. I will take it on faith that you are not being spiteful either.

I ask that for a simple reason. We state our motivations up front. We're not doing this for fun, we're doing this to rescue a card in the format (and retain its value in the process, a very nice side benefit). However, the precise motives of people who are "on the other side of the fence" are tough to discern. People love to get sucked into arguments here, merely because they can participate in them. However, we're not getting an overwhelming amount of people coming here or other forums and telling us that they are genuinely happy about the decision. In fact, the response has been primariy one of either ambivalence, or unhappiness. You are literally the first person in the past week that has at least attempted to put forth a reason why you're happy with the decision. I'm not exaggerating. I'm going to say that its a safe inference at this stage that the net effect of this errata is largely negative. Maybe if more people like you voice their opinion it might change my mind, but I genuinely believe that those arguing against us are really ambivalent on the issue. I don't blame them - if I didn't play T1, I probably wouldn't care one bit either way.

[LotusHead]

Today I took apart my "Time Bandits" deck.  Lodestone Myr/TimeVault/Flame Fusilade Stax.dec.

I had 3 days notice.  I borrowed cards from locals who cant (or are too casual) to play competetive T1 to make this one of my "T1 10 Proxy Decks" that I train the locals to play to make multiple top 8s in our meta.

These are primarily T2 players who are 18 and under (I am 34 and own P7) and they love Vintage first and formost for its simultaneous brokenness and fairness and above all "Who can pwn who first biatch!!!" quality.  It's like Ninja's attacking. The point is, these kids are "Magic MTG's Future".

I have invested about $20 per week into Magic for the last 13 years, be it booster drafts, shopping for pimp foils for existing decks, bargain buys (Strip Mine for $1? Sign me up!).

I own 0 Time Vaults. I own P7, 8 Wastelands, 5 Crucibles (borrowed 2 to make 7 and hence X number of Crucible decks), 2 Mana Drains, 8 Chalices, 5 Welders (plus another 4 from locals who will help me make T1 decks when neccessary), and will likely be giving WOTC money on a regular basis for the rest of my life.

I have no financial interest in Time Vault whatsoever.  I only play it (and Shops for that matter) if a "Proxy Environment" exists for T1.  And it is fun/addictive/creative/fun/harmless.

Today is Friday.  last Thursday night (8 days ago) I found out that Magic The Gathering was gonna errataban Time Vault (and it's Flame Fusilade/Lodestone Myr combo components) within 4 days. Friday, Saturday, Sunday: Monday No More Time Vault Shennanigans.

This is a shock to me. 

I "adjusted" to a restricted Trinisphere environment (personally, I hated 3sphere, but like others, dealt with it with 5 or so basic lands in my combo deck. They can't always have T2 Crucible, T3 Strip.) But I had at least 20 days or so to accept that TheRiddler.dec sucks, and "5/3" isn't as easy anymore (no quadruple Trinisphere's Maindeck).

Nuking my TimeBandits deck with 3 days notice is still very painfull...

I love this game.  I love the card interactions.

I love understanding the rules, and helping others to understand the rules as well.

I am "average Vintage Magic Player" who is not Smmemen or J.Orlove or R.Buehler or whatever.

All I know is that "Time Vault/Flame Fusilade" is no more broken than Power Artifact/Grim Monolith, or even SalVagers for God'sSake...

3/4 days is too soon to deal with taking "Team Vacaville certified T1 10 proxy decks" not only out of circulation/viability, but out of existance forevermore.

I am STILL confused why!!!

Mana Vault from ABU memory has something to do with "upkeep" or before you draw a card and something bad happens.
TimeVault from ABU says something about HOLY SHIT!!! Multiple Turns with Twiddle or infinite turns with Animate Artifact/Instil Energy.  noting is said about Time Vault beingt specifically an "Untap during your upkeep" kinda thing. 

[PucktheCat]

I particularly love it when dicemanx is reduced to asserting that people on the other side are arguing with him out of spite.  Just because someone was made happy by a decision that you were not doesn't mean they're out to get you.  I like symmetry and coherent rules structures.  That's why I enjoy law school.  I'm apparently not the only one.  I also hate poor argumentation, and these theads have been full of it.

I had a longer point-by-point post, but the conversation has passed it by, so I will settle for something more limited:

Well I think it was clearly ambiguous. So new question. Do you think that your take on the situation is the only valid one out of a pool of educated, mature individuals? If I am convinced that something works a certain way, and 20 very bright people think otherwise, I might consider tightening my scrutiny a tad, and make sure that I'm not missing anything.

In almost every litigation there are a number of bright, educated, mature individuals on both sides who believe their claim enough to invest thousands of dollars in it.  I understand where you're argument that it is ambiguous comes from, but I am telling you that it looks like exactly what it is: a post-hoc rationalization of a position you already believed.

Mirror Universe was a victim of a rules revision. So were countless other cards. I cannot say if this was a good or bad thing, because the cost-benefit analysis is difficult. Time Vault errata isn't a victim of rules revision - it is a victim of some incessant need to clean up the oracle text based on presupposed textual intent.

I don't see the distinction.  We have two decisions, one to revise and clean up the rules, the other to revise and clean up the Oracle.  Both were made for similar reasons - to simplify and clarify the way the game works.  Both have affected the value of many cards, some for better and some for worse.

[Moxlotus]

Here is the letter I sent to Gottlieb.  I'll post his reply when/if I receive it.

Mr. Gottlieb,

While I disagree with the errata behind Time Vault, that is not the issue of this email.  I am wondering about other possibilities.  It has been said that you do not errata cards for power reasons anymore (a move I consider a very good idea). What is the reasoning behind keeping a time counter on Time Vault?  Isn't that solely for power reasons?

Why was it decided that Time Vault could only untap during your upkeep?  I thought a lot of options were available during a game where you could untap it during your opponent's end step.  Putting "you may only untap Time Vault once per turn" could have preserved the, as it is being described, the "integrity of the card."  Was that option ever discussed? 

Was the possibility of simply moving the "skip a turn" (the "debt") of Time Vault to after the colon to be an effect (an effect similar to Meditate or Chronatog) ever discussed?  If so, why was it dismissed?

Have you ever considered reversing past errata that was given for power reasons--Great Whale and the like?  I understand that it may be considered unnecessary and a waste of time since it only affects Legacy and Vintage, but the errata on Vault & Co. also only affected Legacy and Vintage.

Thank you,
Philip Schmitt

[dicemanx]

I particularly love it when dicemanx is reduced to asserting that people on the other side are arguing with him out of spite.  Just because someone was made happy by a decision that you were not doesn't mean they're out to get you.

Let me explain. There is a proposition on the table put forth by Smmenen and endorsed by me and many others. Our argument ultimately hinges on that cost benefit analysis - our contention is that this has done much more damage than it has done good. In fact, we believe at this point that either people are ambivalent or are upset, but few, if any, are genuinely happy with the decision. This isn't surprising really.

So we were looking for someone, anyone, to come forth and state that this decision made them happy due to a legitimate reason. We have very legitimate reasons for being unhappy (whether they are enough to be acted upon is another matter). It is only fair that people on the "other side of the fence" present reasons for their happiness.

However, the responses we've been getting have been generally poorly thought out, nitpicky, or have demonstrated that  people really haven't grasped the issues entirely. This too wasn't surprising. Joining this discussion is a very easy thing to do - its not like butting into a real world conversation. Plus, since its a magic topic, people feel this compulsion to offer their two cents just because there's a keyboard in front of them that they can use to bang out some uninformed response. Now that's cool and all, but in order to understand where I stand on this issue, I have to try to gauge where other people stand on the issue. I have to determine if they are "passing through" since this thread caught their eye, or they have some vested interest in this decision. I also have to determine if they get frustrated when they run into a brick wall and start making claims out of spite. This is a very real possibility, and knowing how most people operate on the internet and in real life makes me wary of what motivates people to say the things that they do. Part of my profession is understanding how people think, how they reason, and what motivates them to engage in a certain behavior. Maybe my responses translate poorly on the forums (since there isn't any kind of continuous dialog, which can make things frustrating, and even i don't have infinite patience), and some view me as overly harsh at times, but its hard to change that from my end.


 

[kirdape3]

You know why I'm happy with the actual decision?  I look at Mana Vault as it as templated now:

Mana Vault
1
Artifact

Mana Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may pay 4.  If you do, untap Mana Vault.
At the beginning of your draw step, if Mana Vault is tapped, it deals 1 damage to you.
Tap: Add 3 to your mana pool.

and I look at Time Vault as it is templated now (as of April 24):

Time Vault
2
Artifact

Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may skip a turn and put a time counter on Time Vault.  If you do, untap Time Vault.
Tap, remove all time counters from Time Vault: Take another turn after this one.  Play this ability only if there's a time counter on Time Vault.

Even though they still kept time counters for some reason, this current wording makes a lot of sense to me.  If they follow up with the removal of the time counter criterion, then I can explain how Time Vault works to a new player like this:

"You know what Mana Vault does, right?"
"Yeah."
"Time Vault does the same thing only the cost is skipping a turn."
"Okay."

Even as it stands now, it's not that hard to explain.  I wasn't unhappy with the old wording, but I'm also not unhappy with this wording.

What really got me was that they waited two full sets to change the errata.  I can totally forgive the Ravnica update error - they just flat out missed the interaction between this card and Flame Fusillade.  That causes a couple months of shenanigans, and it screws with a Grand Prix a little, but it was probably just an honest mistake, right?  Nope, they missed it in the Guildpact update too.  That smacks of incompetence. 

Outside of that, the actual effect of the errata is not negative at all.

[The Atog Lord]

"You know what Mana Vault does, right?"
"Yeah."
"Time Vault does the same thing only the cost is skipping a turn."
"Okay."

If that were the case, I'd be perfectly happy. But it isn't. I can use Twiddle on Mana Vault, but Time Vault has this weird Time Counter on it. So, they aren't really mirroring each other at all.

[Khahan]

Great article Steve.  For the most part, I agree with all your points. But

I am not a time vault owner. I have no direct monetary considerations to my distaste for this errata.

Quite simply, it was completely out of the blue and downright arbitrary.  Then, after the its done, I read Gotleib's article and come away just thinking, "What?"

Gottleib did not present one single compelling argument as to why this particular (or any) errata was issued.  He sounded like my 5 year old trying to justify why I found her hand in the cookie jar.  Nothing but random, unrelated statements.  Mana vault and time vault are similar?

1) They are both magic cards
2) They both have vault in their name
3) They are both from alpha
4) The templating is the same

Nothing functional in that comparison. So the templating is the same that means that the timing must be the same?

Let's look at Kahmal, Fist of Krosa and Overrun.  They are both worded, "creatures you control gain +3/+3 and trample."

The templating is, "creatures you control gain _________ and _________

By Gottleib's randoming reasoning that wording within templating must be the same, then we need to errata:
[card]stampede driver[/card]
[card]graphic violence[/card]
[card]centaur chieftan[/card]

There are many more random groupings of cards that probably need to be randomly errated due to Mr. Gottleib's logic.
What Gotleib has done is apply internal rules from the rules for the design team to the development team. Design works on templating mechanics. "We want this mechanic to work, so this is the way to word the skeleton."

Development works on changing mechanics. "This mechanic is fun. How can we tweak it to make it more fun?" 

But now that development must obey designs words, there goes creativity from the game. Once a mechanic is set, its set. How its worded is set in stone (templating), but even what its effects are can now be set in stone.  I guess its a good thing this change didn't come down the pike before Ravnica. Otherwise, the guild cards such as [card]ribbons of night[/card] couldn't have evolved into Dissension cards like [card]azorious herald[/card].

Obviously, that will not happen. But if you follow the logic that Mark presented, that is a reasonable conclusion. He all but states, "We are making templating and functional cost/effect be consistent throughout different cards.

Bad precedent.

[jpmeyer]

"You know what Mana Vault does, right?"
"Yeah."
"Time Vault does the same thing only the cost is skipping a turn."
"Okay."

If that were the case, I'd be perfectly happy. But it isn't. I can use Twiddle on Mana Vault, but Time Vault has this weird Time Counter on it. So, they aren't really mirroring each other at all.

You missed the part where he said "If they follow up with the removal of the time counter criterion, then I can explain how Time Vault works to a new player like this:"

If Time Vault were errataed in this way, would people still be angry?  It seems like this would cause it to be restricted/banned in Vintage/Legacy (causing the value to drop), and it would remove some of the combos (like Flame Fusilade), but it would allow for the easy substitution of Voltaic Key in Gifts splits.  I could see people going either way.

(I would think that it would need to be restricted because there are a large number of other "untap an artifact" cards like Clock of Omens, Galvanic Key, and Aphetto Alchemist.  Extra morphed Alchemists can even be the deck's kill condition)

[Smmenen]

Steve, you're a lawyer.  Since when does obscure evidence about original intent have any ability to overturn an established interpretation?  The speech/press clauses of the First Amendment were probably never meant to protect subversive advocacy, but that fact wouldn't get you very far in court.  The interpretations of Mana Vault and Basalt Monolith were set by Revised and haven't changed substantially since.  This is a commonly understood and accepted interpretation, and there is no reason to overturn it.  It is settled law.  Once you accept that principle, there is only one reasonable interpretation of Time Vault.  In legal terms, the Mana Vault principle is a canon of construction.  Once that canon is brought to bear the statute is clear on its face.

The decision to errata Time Vault made no one happy. Some people didn't care, and some people were neutral, but the way this went down left a bad taste in the mouth of even those who felt that the Time Vault combo should not exist. This was a lose-lose decision.

The people the decision was designed to make happy are future players who, by definition, aren't likely to be on the boards bitching about this stuff on internet message boards.

I no longer am of the opinoin that they should revert back to the 2004 errata.

I think, instead, it's time to remove the time Counter from Time Vault.

THe problem is that Gottlieb's logic and everything he has put forward to support this decision is terribly flawed.   Almost every single sentence out of his mouth is problematic.   All of the logic he uses to support his position is either terribly flawed or wrong. 

The whole future players thing is a huge joke.  Do you honeslty think that the unhappiness incurred will be outweighed by the happiness of future players who are so happy to discover that time vault untaps on upkeep like they thought it always did?

It's ludcirious.  As I said in the article, no new player in a vinage tournament is going to be so happy to discover that time vault works like they always thought it did given what they knew of mana valt!!!  in all likelihood, that player never even saw an alpha mana vault before let alone a time vault.  Ridiciulous.

[diopter]

Time Vault is and always has been ambiguous as written. The act of errata is one of clarification. Gottlieb needs to realize that he is exercising raw power and choosing one of at least two reasonable interpretations.

I agree with you. There are several reasonable interpretations of the card, an alternative being something like:

Time Vault - 2
Artifact
Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Skip your next turn: Untap Time Vault. Use this ability only once per turn.
Tap: Take an extra turn after this one.

However, the current errata has the major advantage of syncing up the wording of Time Vault with that of Mana Vault, resulting in more consistency in the rules system of our beloved game. Other interpretations could have preserved the functionality of Time Vault, but would result in less consistency in the rules. That's why I think this decision was right.

Note: I'm sure somebody will bring up the time counter thing. The general consensus on this forum seems to be that the time counter thing is power-level errata, and thus belongs in a different discussion (seeing as how the fundamental reason people are debating is because the templating of Time Vault has changed so drastically).

Edit:

The whole future players thing is a huge joke. Do you honeslty think that the unhappiness incurred will be outweighed by the happiness of future players who are so happy to discover that time vault untaps on upkeep like they thought it always did?

It's ludcirious. As I said in the article, no new player in a vinage tournament is going to be so happy to discover that time vault works like they always thought it did given what they knew of mana valt!!! in all likelihood, that player never even saw an alpha mana vault before let alone a time vault. Ridiciulous.

I don't think the future players thing is a joke at all, and I think it is wrong to dismiss it as "ridiculous". Newer players won't necessarily be made happy just because of the Time Vault errata. What will make new players happy is all of the little Oracle updates (including the Time Vault one) that are built up on top of each other until Magic becomes a rules-consistent, templating-consistent game, from Alpha to the current set.

And yes, I do believe new-player happiness will outweigh the current unhappiness, because even those people who are unhappy now are benefitting from this errata. Not this errata specifically, but the act of updating old cards and syncing up the Oracle wordings of cards with similar card-text wordings makes the rules and templating systems "cleaner", which in turn makes the game more enjoyable to play. Because, let's face it, it would be amazing if we could play with our cards with the text exactly as it is printed... the closer we get to that, the better.

What in the flying fuck are you talking about? Are you blind?

I wish that such strong language wasn't aimed at people in this debate. I realize that while this technically wasn't an insult, I still perceive it as an attack, and such an attack will take away from your own argument

[andrewpate]

If you can't fix it, it ain't broken.

What great logic.  If you can't find a solution, just ignore the problem!  This has worked great for all sorts of things in the past, like, you know, cancer.

Time Vault - 2
Artifact
Time Vault comes into play tapped.
Skip your next turn: Untap Time Vault. Use this ability only once per turn.
Tap: Take an extra turn after this one.

However, the current errata has the major advantage of syncing up the wording of Time Vault with that of Mana Vault, resulting in more consistency in the rules system of our beloved game. Other interpretations could have preserved the functionality of Time Vault, but would result in less consistency in the rules. That's why I think this decision was right.

Of course, your new wording is already impossible given the fact that it requires you to skip your turn "on credit," which is pretty much the first thing Gottleib talked about.  Good thing you're staying so abreast of the issues.

Aside from that, your argument that the new errata results in more "consistency in the rules" is sheer farce at best.  If you are going to refute an argument, it's generally a good idea to state why you find that argument to be invalid and/or unsound.  You suggest, as a weaker but still ostensibly correct wording, a proviso affixed to the untap ability allowing it to be used only one each turn.  Even setting aside your ridiculous assertion that this would be "less consistent" than the time counter, (no other examples of abilities analogous to the time counters, but a whopping 51 separate cards with similar provisos, such as Akki Avalanchers, Quirion Ranger, and the entire Forecast mechanic), you fail to address the original point of Steve and others:  where did you get the idea that Time Vault is absolutely incapable of untapping more than once each turn?  This is one possible interpretation of the text, yes, especially given the inclusion of the turn skipping clause in the same sentence with the non-untapping clause.  However, the argument is at least as strong (and, I think, much stronger) that untapping Time Vault more than once in a turn was originally possible.  Keep in mind that, originally, this would not have been problematic.  It is perfectly fine to skip many turns in exchange for many turns; the net result is still just a single activation.  Refute this.  Convince me that Time Vault can only untap once each turn.

As Diceman has said, the arguments in favor of the errata have been, at best, nebulous and, far more often, downright asinine (e.g., your assertion that Steve's employment of a couple of ad hominem expletives suddenly gives you grounds to dismiss his arguments via some misguided moral-high-ground rhetoric):

Convince me that Time Vault can only untap once per turn.  Convince me that people are better off with this errata.  Convince me that choosing Time Vault of all cards, now of all times, to receive this of all interpretations, while everything from Great Whale to Waylay to Parallax Tide continues to do something completely different from what its text describes, is something other than a power-level driven move, just exactly like the time counters.  Because nobody has done any of these things.

[PucktheCat]

The whole future players thing is a huge joke.  Do you honeslty think that the unhappiness incurred will be outweighed by the happiness of future players who are so happy to discover that time vault untaps on upkeep like they thought it always did?

I do.  And I think it is even more clearly the case when you view the decision in the proper context, as part of a policy to update the Oracle as a whole.  Again, I think 6th ed. rules are the relevant model for comparison.

The community does have a voice, but WotC quite rightly ignores us when we get overwrought.  This whole thing resembles the reaction to the unrestriction of Berserk much more than the well reasoned arguments that got it unrestricted in the first place.

people come along who appear to be functionally illiterate and yell, "Shut up! Wizards knoes what their doing! Their in charge of they're game!"

I'm pretty sure I read at at least a 6th grade level.  You are right though, whoever you're quoting obviously has a poor grasp of English.

[dicemanx]

Steve was replying to PuckTheCat with that post, who, at least in my opinion, is not functionally illiterate at all. He articulated his arguments very well, using legal arguments just as Steve did, and unlike Steve, Puck did not attempt to insult anybody, explicitly or implicitly.

I'm 1000 times less bothered by Steve's use of expletives than I am with people just refusing to understand a very straightforward argument. The argument is basically in two parts:

1) Text is ambiguous, leading to multiple interpretations

2) One interpretation leads to net unhappiness. The other(s) are therefore better options.

Simple.

Point 1 is beyond challenge, unless you see what you want to see or you wish to pretend that you see something that isn't there. Be my guest.

Therefore, this only leaves point #2. This one CAN be challenged. However, I have yet to see 1 compelling argument challenging it so far. If you want to try and establish why reversing the decision is bad short term or long term, or how this has a net increase in player happiness, then I'd LOVE to hear it. Telling us that any reversal is "bad" or that people are "happy" has no value. Those are not arguments, those are contentious statements. We can make our own contentious statements in response, like "you're an idiot" or "you have no basic comprehension skills". It's frustrating, isn't it?

If you want to discuss how one interpretation is "better", or that we have no "voice", or our motives are not "correct", or that we should "accept it and move on", you people should start your own thread entitled "Ancillary bullshit discussions regarding Time Vault errata". This thread is about addressing the points raised in the article.

[Smmenen]

The whole future players thing is a huge joke.  Do you honeslty think that the unhappiness incurred will be outweighed by the happiness of future players who are so happy to discover that time vault untaps on upkeep like they thought it always did?

I do.  And I think it is even more clearly the case when you view the decision in the proper context, as part of a policy to update the Oracle as a whole.  Again, I think 6th ed. rules are the relevant model for comparison.

Part of the proper context?  Please.

This decision, like all, must be judged on whether the costs justified the benefits.

The asserted justification was the happiness of future players at not discovering that mana vault an time vault, although having the same templating, work differently.

You are extremely naive if you think that there will be any more than an ioto of happiness that newbs in vintage tournaments will derive from this change.  

A) HOw many NEWBS actually play Vintage tournaments where they are likely to see time vault?  People who suck aren't good enough to play against kowal or brassy's gifts.

b) How many NEWBS who DO play in vintage tournamnets won't become familiar with the dominant strategies in vintage and thus become aware of the legality of the combo?

c) How many NEWBS woul be THAT pissed off to discover that Time Vault can untap at any time when the text is ambiguous?

d)  MOST importantly, how many newbs will actually have read an alpha mana vault?

This whole thing is just preposterous.  

[Khahan]

They are functionally different in that one taps for mana, the other taps for turns. However, the way in which one can untap them is worded exactly the same on the cards (excluding the cost to untap). Why shouldn't WotC update the Oracle so that they work similarly now? It is an advantage, you admit yourself. The disadvantages (nuking a card in Eternal formats, causing cards to depreciate in value) hurt this community a lot, but the issue at hand is the way this game works and the impact of the TV errata on the game. Other considerations such as the effect on the secondary market should be left to other discussions in other threads.

Ok, so they are functionally different. We can agree on that.
They are similar in that neither untaps during your untap step. We can agree on that.
But, tell me why they HAVE to both untap during your upkeep?  That was never a part of time vault and as far as I know, there is no rule that states, "permanents which do not untap as normal may only be untapped by effects on upkeep." 
Yes, there are a lot of cards that do that. But why?

You ask why shouldn't WoTC update the oracle so they function similarly and I ask why should they do it?  Its obvious that for whatever reason, you've bought gottleib's reasoning hook, line and sinker.  But you still have not told us (and neither has Mr. Gottleib) WHY these 2 cards needed to have not only identical templating (they already had that to be honest) but identical execution.  That's the word I'm looking for and should be what I asked you before.

Why does execution have to match from card to just because templating does?

Remember, templating is, " '_________ doesn't untap normally during untap phase; to untap it, you must _________.' "

Execution is what goes in the second blank.  The reasoning behind why that last blank must be consistent on different cards is lost on me, so please enlighten me.  Because I always thought there should be some differences on different cards to keep the game different. 

And while we're on it...why does the timing of an event on 2 different cards have to be the same? The cards are truly different aren't they?

[PucktheCat]

Step back Steve, take a breath.  If you can't imagine the utilitarian benefits of a decision like this, think back to your law school classes.  I'm sure you had to learn many, many doctrines that no longer work as they should, but remain the law because of law's inherently conservative nature.  I am sure at least once you were frustrated to have to learn such a doctrine or glad to see that it was no longer the law or in decline.  I am outlining "par value of stock" right now, and I can only wish that Mark Gottlieb had gotten his hands on the General Corporate Law of Deleware and elminated that outdated concept for good.  I sincerely hope that the next generation of lawyers never have to deal with it.  Will they be happy about not dealing with it?  Perhaps not.  If they are lucky they will never know it exists - which, trust me, will be a great utilitarian benefit to everyone concerned.

Remember that this game has been around for a while now, and WotC hopes it will be around for a while longer still.  Each little inconsistency and incoherence imposes costs.  They may be marginal, but as long as the inconsistency remains they continue to accrue.  The sooner we can fix them the better off we are.

[CF]

This is how the card was intended to be, I'm pretty sure: "Skip a turn to be able to take another one later". That's it. You put one turn in the Vault and you can then use it later. It fits the name and flavour and you can see the original wording, considering what other cards existed at the time, trying to reinforce this.

Ideally they would have just removed the entire tap/untapped bit and just said:

Time Vault 3
Skip a turn: But a time counter on Time Vault
Remove all counters from Time Vault: Take another turn after this one.

I have no idea why they didn't just do this (possibly with T: as part of the second cost and with "Use this ability only once per turn" on the first ability). They did, however, fix it so that it's no untapping machine. Now the card text fits the flavour of a "Time Vault". I approve.

Stephen: If a company fixes one thing and then cancels it due to someone complaining, won't you have serious trouble trusting them to ever be able to push through with anything. I know I would. The errata could have been better, but you _are_ upset about the untapping machine mechanic disappearing - something that has nothing to do with the mechanic and flavour of the card. Surely you can find better uses of your time than heading this futile crusade? That said, the article seemed solid and most of the points against Gottlieb's reasoning accurate. It's just that they don't really matter, cause everything was arguments supporting an action WotC should not and must not go through with. Gottlieb has flimsy reasoning, ok, but the card works like it should now, imo. And a company needs to stick to their decisions when they do something like this (even though this is the 5th time or whatever they're fixing it).

--
Chris

[Smmenen]

Step back Steve, take a breath.  If you can't imagine the utilitarian benefits of a decision like this, think back to your law school classes.  I'm sure you had to learn many, many doctrines that no longer work as they should, but remain the law because of law's inherently conservative nature.  I am sure at least once you were frustrated to have to learn such a doctrine or glad to see that it was no longer the law or in decline.  I am outlining "par value of stock" right now, and I can only wish that Mark Gottlieb had gotten his hands on the General Corporate Law of Deleware and elminated that outdated concept for good.  I sincerely hope that the next generation of lawyers never have to deal with it.  Will they be happy about not dealing with it?  Perhaps not.  If they are lucky they will never know it exists - which, trust me, will be a great utilitarian benefit to everyone concerned.

Remember that this game has been around for a while now, and WotC hopes it will be around for a while longer still.  Each little inconsistency and incoherence imposes costs.  They may be marginal, but as long as the inconsistency remains they continue to accrue.  The sooner we can fix them the better off we are.

Whoa whoa whoa

Talk about shifting ground.

Not too long ago you were saying that there was only one reading on Time Vault - now you seem to be conceding the point and now are talking about the utilitarian argument in the most abstract terms possible so as to avoid actual debate.

I like you leo, but you're flat wrong on this one.  This decision was wrong from the get go and its still wrong now.   

I'm gonig to reiterate the poitns I already made about the utilitiarn argument:

You are extremely naive if you think that there will be any more than an ioto of happiness that newbs in vintage tournaments will derive from this change. 

A) HOw many NEWBS actually play Vintage tournaments where they are likely to see time vault?  People who suck aren't good enough to play against kowal or brassy's gifts.

b) How many NEWBS who DO play in vintage tournamnets won't become familiar with the dominant strategies in vintage and thus become aware of the legality of the combo?

c) How many NEWBS woul be THAT pissed off to discover that Time Vault can untap at any time when the text is ambiguous?

d)  MOST importantly, how many newbs will actually have read an alpha mana vault?

This whole thing is just preposterous. 

Now, perhaps the best solution is not to revert back, but that simply means that what needs to be done is the removeal of the time counter.

Gottlieb's logic demands it if he refuses to accept the utilitiarn argument. 

[dicemanx]

If a company fixes one thing and then cancels it due to someone complaining, won't you have serious trouble trusting them to ever be able to push through with anything. I know I would.

Given that a company is losing integrity by blatantly disregarding previous policy and pissing off some of its customers, I think its a little preposterous to say that you would have trouble trusting them if they reversed that decision.

You might as well start claiming that you cannot trust companies that admit to mistakes or won't reverse them if they recognize them to be mistakes.

Plus, this isn't some random, habitual, emotional "complaining". Complaints are made all the time, but this is one of the few in recent memory that has both a solid argument in favor of it, and good arguments to counter WotC's justifications of that decision. 

[dicemanx]

Remember that this game has been around for a while now, and WotC hopes it will be around for a while longer still.  Each little inconsistency and incoherence imposes costs.

It's curious how our proposed versions create "inconsistency" or "incoherence".  Or is this borne out of the continued delusion that there is a "right way to errata Time Vault", just worded differently?

Or are you attributing "inconsistency" and "incoherence" to the idea of a company making a reversal?

Either way, it seems your tactic is to keep things nice and vague, while waving your hands around claiming that there "might be some negative long term effects", and using words like "incoherence" and "inconsistency"...because they sound good?

[PucktheCat]

Or is this borne out of the continued delusion that there is a "right way to errata Time Vault", just worded differently?

Actually, its bourne out of my spite for you personally and desire to saboutage all that is right with this game.  Just like all of my arguments.

No seriously - that's exactly the premise I'm working from, although I might have used somewhat language to describe it.  :lol:

I'm gonna bow out of this debate now.  I like both of you guys, and it's clear to me that this debate has more potential to create lasting bad blood than most of the stuff we talk about on here, so I'm going to just leave it alone.  I'm sorry this decision upset you guys so much.  I really believe it was made for the right reasons, and I really believe that changes like this help the game overall.  But I can tell that this debate is doing no good for anyone.

[Smmenen]

Or is this borne out of the continued delusion that there is a "right way to errata Time Vault", just worded differently?

Actually, its bourne out of my spite for you personally and desire to saboutage all that is right with this game.  Just like all of my arguments.

No seriously - that's exactly the premise I'm working from, although I might have used somewhat language to describe it.  :lol:

I'm gonna bow out of this debate now.  I like both of you guys, and it's clear to me that this debate has more potential to create lasting bad blood than most of the stuff we talk about on here, so I'm going to just leave it alone.  I'm sorry this decision upset you guys so much.  I really believe it was made for the right reasons, and I really believe that changes like this help the game overall.  But I can tell that this debate is doing no good for anyone.

No no no no  - that's not fair leo.

If you are right an we wrong, we need to know why we are wrong.

I have finally posted in reply to your points today Leo - and you haven't directly addressed the major points i replied to.   

If you really like us, then the best thing you can do is show why I am wrong.  Rather than just pretend to bow out in our best interest without refuting the logic i've laid out.

Specifically, I said:

Go read time vault right now.

You are trying to tell me that this sentence:

"Time Vault does not untap on untap step; to untap it, you must skip a turn" ONLY means that you can untap it on upkeep. 

No intelligent linguist, english major, or logician would buy that.     And that's why Mark Gottlieb is a flat out idiot. 

Time Vault is and always has been ambiguous as written. The act of errata is one of clarification. Gottlieb needs to realize that he is exercising raw power and choosing one of at least two reasonable interpretations. 

I actually have less quarrel with the act of raw power than I do with his whole bullshit (as before) and flimsly justification.

----------------------


you never refuted oir even dealt with the content of that post. 

[Machinus]

I no longer am of the opinoin that they should revert back to the 2004 errata.

I'm happy to see that this is the case. If you discuss the need for WotC to have integrity when it comes to policy decisions, it requires them to adhere to this one as well. If you consider the effects on the secondary market from this errata, you must take into consideration the effects that a second one would have. It should be clear that it would be significantly damaging to market values, but it would be even worse for their credibilty when it comes to policy decisions. Instead of taking a period of some years to change their policies, they would have done so in days; this would effectively encourage all magic players to initiate protests, articles, and emails every time something happens that they do not like. As WotC doesn't have any obligation to care, this would be ruinous for their credibility.

[Smmenen]

I no longer am of the opinoin that they should revert back to the 2004 errata.

I'm happy to see that this is the case. If you discuss the need for WotC to have integrity when it comes to policy decisions, it requires them to adhere to this one as well. If you consider the effects on the secondary market from this errata, you must take into consideration the effects that a second one would have. It should be clear that it would be significantly damaging to market values, but it would be even worse for their credibilty when it comes to policy decisions. Instead of taking a period of some years to change their policies, they would have done so in days; this would effectively encourage all magic players to initiate protests, articles, and emails every time something happens that they do not like. As WotC doesn't have any obligation to care, this would be ruinous for their credibility.

I actually dont think all of those things are so bad.

WIzards should only make a change in their decision if they realize that they are wrong.  I twould not open the door to a revision of all policies.  Only poor ones.

Finally, the reason I say that I no longer think that reverting to the 2004 errata is right is because I now think they should remove the time counter entirely.  That's where I'm headed with this. 

[Machinus]

I actually dont think all of those things are so bad.

WIzards should only make a change in their decision if they realize that they are wrong.  I twould not open the door to a revision of all policies.  Only poor ones.

Finally, the reason I say that I no longer think that reverting to the 2004 errata is right is because I now think they should remove the time counter entirely.  That's where I'm headed with this. 

If it were up to me to determine the most accurate interpretation of the card, I would probably go in this direction as well.

The problem is that you (and I, or anyone else outside of WotC) can't just decide which decisions are "poor." Every time someone doesn't like a decision, they will call it "poor." There is no objective standard by which to measure every decision made in the company; this is the entire point of having credibility and integrity. By adhering to the decisions they make, they don't have to convince every single customer of what they are doing; even people who don't really understand or like their decisions can at least rely on their consistency, and know from their history that they will act in a certain manner. I really think they have even more to lose by making any changes so soon after these, especially since they have developed such an elaborate defense of the change.

Basically, I am saying that even if they were to come to the conclusion that they made a mistake, their (at this point, uncertain) obligation to the secondary market, and to their customers in general, would require them to uphold the original decision. I'm sure the legal understanding of precedent is much more detailed and substantial than this. Gottlieb can't just come out and say he made a mistake; he is part of a large corporation, and it is not his place to dictate the character of it.

[TopSecret]

     Smmenen, I don't agree with the second part of the conclusion in your article. This is why:

     If Wizards of the Coast decide to go back on their decision, and re-errata Time Vault, wouldn't it just make the situation worse?

Changing it so that the Flame/Vault Combo functions would alter Time Vault's value... again.
     People were pissed when their Time Vault(s) became far less valuable, and useful. So, many people sold them for cheap.
     Imagine how pissed those people would be if they found out that the Time Vault(s) they just sold for $60 went back up to $200... Again.

     Also, how would it make Wizards look if they suddenly went back on an influential decision?
Many people would regard that as inconsistent and unpredictable. That isn't a good way to restore the faith of most Magic players.

     Even if the initial decision was incorrect, I don't think it is reasonable for Wizards to go back on it now.

Am I wrong? If so, could you help me to understand why?

Thanks.

[Moxlotus]

     Smmenen, I don't agree with the second part of the conclusion in your article. This is why:

     If Wizards of the Coast decide to go back on their decision, and re-errata Time Vault, wouldn't it just make the situation worse?

Changing it so that the Flame/Vault Combo functions would alter Time Vault's value... again.
     People were pissed when their Time Vault(s) became far less valuable, and useful. So, many people sold them for cheap.
     Imagine how pissed those people would be if they found out that the Time Vault(s) they just sold for $60 went back up to $200... Again.

     Also, how would it make Wizards look if they suddenly went back on an influential decision?
Many people would regard that as inconsistent and unpredictable. That isn't a good way to restore the faith of most Magic players.

     Even if the initial decision was incorrect, I don't think it is reasonable for Wizards to go back on it now.

Am I wrong? If so, could you help me to understand why?

Thanks.

1. Wizards has said that they don't care about the secondary market.

2. I don't know of any job anywhere that once a realization that a mistake is made, the correct move ISN'T to fix it ASAP.  Confidence would be gained by WotC in the way that if a mistake is made, they can be relied upon to correct that mistake immediately.